On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with PGage that NBC deserves credit for putting on such an > > ambitious show, but they also deserve the blame for lowering the > > network's level of quality to the point that the series could not find > > the audience it deserved. > > I watched every episode when the series ran, usually on tape or on > Hulu the week it aired. The series had a lot going for it but I don't > believe the problem was that the audience was just too lowbrow for it. > (SNIP) > > The thing I think really hurt the series was the actor who played > David. He just wasn't engaging enough to pull viewers to watch the > show. My take is that the producers were more interested in getting a > pretty boy to lead rather than a dynamic actor like Ian MacShane who > played King Saul. (SNIP)I > Tom makes some good points here. In Deadwood MacShane really had some equal status actors to play off of; in Kings he often did not get the ball hit back to him at the same velocity. That partly was probably intentional - and what made the show interesting. In popular Christian tradition King Saul gets real bad press, but the OT stories describe him as a a head taller than the average man and a commanding leader, while David (at least during Saul's lifetime) is something of a conniving weakling. As Tom says, it is possible the David character would have gotten fleshed out in later episodes, and there is evidence that this was in progress, but it is not clear the actor was ever going to be able to go toe to toe with MacShane. I also agree that the problem was not that the show was too good for a popular audience - there have been better shows on network tv that got higher ratings, and Kings had a few problems. But I think the problem was that at best it was going to have a narrow audience. Even without all the coc*suckers, Deadwood probably would have not drawn a wide cross section audience either. Still, it seems like there should be some place in the multi-channel-verse for a thoughtful, creative and challenging program to find a home and make a profit if there are two million or so people who want to watch it regularly. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
